Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 9
Application No. 08/778,059
means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in
paragraph six of section 112. Accordingly, the PTO may not
disregard the structure disclosed in the specification
corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability
determination. Donaldson. In this case, as discussed above,
the appellant's specification describes a plurality of members
(64) each associated with a corresponding one of a plurality
of discharge members (52) within reception chambers (24, 26,
28, 30, 32). Thus, the "trigger means for triggering said
first discharge means and said second discharge means" must be
construed to cover only that structure and its equivalents.6
If a single trigger member that actuates plural discharge
means in plural discharge chambers is not an equivalent of the
disclosed structure, the claim cannot be read to include such
structure. However, whether such a structure is an equivalent
of the disclosed structure is not germane to the issue before
6Although, as discussed above, we assume the examiner has withdrawn the
rejection of claims 17 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we
also note, for the record, that the above-mentioned disclosure was included on
pages 3 and 4 of the appellant's specification as originally filed in
Application 08/027,623. Accordingly, the "trigger means for . . ." limitation
is fully supported by the appellant's original disclosure as required by 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007